Last month at Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister (PM) Mark Carney gave a remarkable speech: brave, honest and formally revealing the end of an international rules-based order. But in addition to exposing reality, it was a call-out to “middle powers” to stand up and stand united against the growing demands of aggressive superpowers. The concept of a coalition of middle powers has not only gained in importance over the past few years, it is now critical.

An idea whose time has come

The concept of “middle powers” has existed since at least the 16th century, when Italian statesman Giovanni Bolero mentioned it in his book, The Reason of State. Interestingly, back in 1987, Canada’s North-South Institute published a prescient paper titled “Middle Powers in the International System: A Preliminary Assessment of Potential”.

But in the past couple of years, the idea has gathered momentum. Following Davos 2024, the World Economic Forum highlighted the theme with an article, “Middle Powers: what are they and why do they matter?” Hung Q. Tran, an international economist and fellow with the Atlantic Council, optimistically labeled 2025 as the “Year of the Middle Powers.” The Harvard Kennedy School is in the midst of a Middle Powers Project, doing research on “13 countries, covering security, energy, technology, and other topics central to a changing world amid great power competition.” Last October, Australia’s foreign minister Penny Wong proudly described her country as a middle power, stating that “We are moving into a new era of amplified middle power diplomacy.”

Carney’s rousing speech took this growing idea of middle powers and actioned it into a call for their coalition — “Middle powers must act together” — invoking the old adage, there is strength in numbers. Alone, they are weak; but together, they could be a force.

Stewart Patrick, a director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, seems to assume a coalition when he says, “middle powers have the potential to help stabilize global order and advance cooperation.” He explains that “they must serve as checks on the two superpowers, so that the latter cannot run roughshod over others, and act as stewards of the international system and law, leveraging their position to call out UN Charter violations.”

Who are middle powers?

Middle powers can be simply defined as “countries that ranked below a handful of great powers, but significant enough to be able to act in response to external stimuli with some agency and with some impact.”

So, which countries are middle powers? Some countries — like Canada and Australia — readily claim themselves as middle powers. Others — like the UK and France — seem to still perceive themselves as great powers. A single, comprehensive measure of a country’s power is elusive and hotly debated. However, there are several measures that look at different aspects.

One way to gauge economic clout is by using GDP. Here, the superpowers, the US and China, ranked one and two, lead the charge with $32 trillion and $19 trillion, respectively. Then, after the big gap, come some 19 countries that could be called “middle powers” — with a GDP of $5 trillion to $1 trillion. Canada comes in at number ten, with $2.28 trillion. Interestingly, its next-door neighbors on the list are two BRICS countries: Russia with $2.5 trillion and Brazil with $2.26 trillion.

A way to gauge military clout is by using the Global Firepower (GFP) index (taking into account over 60 factors), which puts the US as number one, Russia as number two, China as number three and India as number four. Here, Canada is listed as number 28 — positioned between Algeria and Singapore. 

Another, more comprehensive measure is “national power”, defined as “the sum of all resources available to a nation in the pursuit of national objectives”. The 2022 World Power Index, which examines approximately 18 indicators, ranks Canada 7th, between the UK and Italy.

There is also soft power. One measure of that is the Global Soft Power Index. The 2025 index (based on some 55 metrics) puts the US and China at the top. Canada is positioned in 7th place, in the midst of several European countries. Interestingly, in the 2026 index, while the US remains at the top, its numbers on several matrices (like generosity, trustworthiness, political stability and ethical standards) have dropped. 

The variety of measures and rankings speaks to the flexibility of the term “middle power”, and therefore its possible breadth of inclusivity.

A coalition of middle powers

To be effective, this coalition of middle powers should be free of superpower influence, free of the stifling bureaucracy of the UN, multilateral and composed of equal members (without veto power). This coalition should be greater than just the disaffected members of NATO or the disillusioned acolytes of hegemons. Including countries from the Global South and countries with different forms of government would also be reflective of Canada’s multicultural composition, pluralistic values and hopefully a newfound perspective that is less self-righteous, more mature and therefore more pragmatic.

Ideally, to maximize power and impact, there should be just one coalition of middle powers. But given differing geographies, existing pressures and internal priorities, that may be difficult. There could also be multiple coalitions formed along various criteria. They could be formed regionally: like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. It could be formed in accordance with shared culture, language and/or history, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand — and even some brave European countries that are prepared to step out from under the protective yet threatening umbrella of their hegemon. Carney also suggests “different coalitions for different issues”.

Apart from building their own coalition, these newly-realized middle-powers also have the option to join existing coalitions — formed by those wise enough decades ago to not see the world as a good-evil dichotomy, to see the dangers of living in the shade of any hegemon and to realize the value and power of a collaboration of smaller forces. 

A number of the world’s developing countries have been a part of a coalition of middle and smaller powers for over 70 years. In 1961, in response to the rapid bipolarization of the world between Russia and the US, leaders of several countries — including India’s PM Jawaharlal Nehru, Yugoslav’s president Josip Broz Tito, Ghana’s president Kwame Nkrumah, Indonesian president Sukarno and Egypt’s PM Gamal Abdel Nasser — came together to form the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to jointly strive for multiple objectives: national sovereignty and independence; peace and neutrality; resisting imperialism, colonialism and hegemony; and economic development.

Today, NAM is a forum of some 120 countries (53 African, 39 Asian, 26 Latin American and two European). It covers 55% of the world population and 60% of UN membership. To a large extent, only the superpowers (the US, China, Russia), the countries of the erstwhile Warsaw Pact and the countries of NATO are not part of NAM.

There is also a newer, smaller and more innocuously defined group of middle powers called MIKTA. Established in 2013, it consists of five diverse countries (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Türkiye, Australia), with the objectives of playing “a constructive role in the international environment” and serving “as a cross-regional consultative platform”.

Prospects for a global spring 

Individually, middle powers are weak. But united, they could be a force for less conflict, smoother trade, cooperation on multinational issues and a more equitable world.

Members of a strong coalition of middle powers need not be slaves to the dictates of superpowers. Instead, they can have the freedom to think and decide for themselves on a multitude of internal and external matters — finance, trade, manufacturing, security, healthcare, education, immigration, social issues, as well as political systems and alliances — all in the interests of their own nations and peoples.

However, because a coalition inherently demands such freedoms, it’s threatening to hegemons and will meet with much opposition. Patrick warns that “Middle powers supporting multilateralism must contend with a rogue United States scornful of normative constraints and a self-absorbed China that shirks global responsibilities.” The coalition of middle powers will need to guard against and counteract the powerful networks of mega-capitalists, oligarchs, high-tech companies, billionaires and current hegemons. It will be swimming in an uncharted, stormy sea with a fragmenting global governance system underfoot and a nebulous, shape-shifting monster called the Board of Peace looming on the horizon. But it has to hold fast to its primary objective: the joint welfare of its nations and peoples. 

We’ve reached a time when a coalition of middle powers is not just a nice-to-have; it is a must-have. Now, when we have returned to an era of resource imperialism, “might is right” has replaced rules-based international order, the US has lost its moral compass, and China is not yet willing to play a global political role, the influence of such a coalition of middle powers is not only helpful but crucial in steering the world away from conflict and inequality, and towards greater stability, equity, and hopefully even addressing real international issues like climate change and public health.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.